• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml
    hexagon
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your reactions to other people and your blaming of western nations very clearly puts you in the position of supporting Russia.

    No, that puts me in a position of having actual understanding of the situation and reality of the war instead of regurgitating western propaganda the way you're doing.

    Instead you keep trying to twist it on everyone else for having the absolute-fucking-audacity of defending themselves. I mean, how dare they fight for their nations survival and independence!

    Where were you when these people were trying to defend themselves as reported by CNN, and where were you when this was happening?

    This is probably one of the very few conflicts in recent times where this war is black and white. There’s a very clear aggressor. This entire war is utterly pointless. It’s not difficult to see how Russia is the aggressor here.

    It's not, and only an ignoramus or a propagandist would claim that. Your whole narrative based on the fallacy of homogenizing Ukraine. Let's take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:

    Show

    here's how the election in 2004 went:

    Show

    this is the 2010 election:

    Show

    As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:

    Show

    Ukraine is clearly not some homogeneous blob, but a large country with complex cultural and ethnic situations.

    Furthermore, the idea that NATO threatens Russia doesn't come from Russia. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:

    https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/

    https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

    50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:

    Show

    Show

    George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.

    Show

    Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"

    Show

    Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.

    And of course, RAND published a whole study titled extending Russia where it proposes to use Ukraine as a western proxy the way is being done now. You're either a shill or a useful idiot for the empire, either way not a good look.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        After the western sponsored coup in 2014 the eastern regions of Ukraine wanted to separate and Ukraine has been in a civil war since then. What Russia did is actually directly modelled on what NATO did in Yugoslavia where they recognized the independence of the breakaway regions and then had them invite NATO for help. That's literally the precedent that you NATO chuds set.

        You still haven’t replied to my point about whether Russia or other nations should have surrendered when they were attacked by axis powers.

        The point where you're trying to compare people of eastern Ukraine fighting for independence from the coup regime that was shelling them with cluster munitions to nazis? If you don't understand why that's an idiotic comparison, then what else is there to say to you.

        Of course that’s bad.

        Oh, it's bad, but the people the coup regime was shelling apparently don't get a right of self determination according to you.

        The NATO crap isn’t even worth discussing and is just a flimsy excuse from Russia to try and justify the “special military operation”.

        Actual geopolitical experts disagree, but I guess you think you know better because you've demonstrated such deep understanding of the subject in this thread. Fun fact is that Russia wanted to join NATO in the 90s and NATO told Russia to fuck off after which point NATO went on to invade a bunch of countries such as Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria and continued to surround Russia militarily.

        You're an ignoramus and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.